Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Enkyo2 (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 13 April 2011 (→Fukushima nuclear accident log, March 2011: lower case -- "nuclear accident log"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Energy portal news

"air may be leaking" ???? Joke or what?

[Source] Government Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters: News Release (-3/30 19:00), Press conference NISA: News Release (-3/30 15:30), Press conference TEPCO: Press Release (-3/30 16:00), Press Conference

"On 30 March, NISA said that air may be leaking from the Reactor Pressure Vessels of Units 2 and 3 because some of their data show the pressure in the vessels is low, but there is no indication of large cracks or holes in the vessels."

"Air is the name given to atmosphere used in breathing and photosynthesis. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%. While air content and atmospheric pressure varies at different layers, air suitable for the survival of terrestrial plants and terrestrial animals is currently known only to be found in Earth's troposphere and artificial atmospheres." - Wikipedia

Air is not found in Reactor Pressure Vessels. Any gas escaping will be mainly Xenon hopefully 131 from decayed Iodine-131.

Jina 13:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that this is a mistranslation of the original Japanese word for "Gas". SteveBaker (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jina is correct - but failure of the torus (or "suppression pool") may draw in air which can be drawn up into the RPV under abnormal pressure conditions. There is also the issue of stuck or damaged pressure relief values on the torus. There still isn't much definitive evidence about the RPVs, though it is clear beyond doubt that Unit 2's was damaged severely enough to pass large amounts of several fission-product isotopes including iodine. Hence the extremely high radiation levels in turbine building 2 and in the "trench" (tunnel) for the #2 seawater pumps. Ucbuffalo81 (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if the split is Daini vs Daiichi, the titles should say that: "I" and "II" is little-known jargon at best, cryptic to impenetrable to most readers

If the split is Daini vs Daiichi, the titles should say

Fukushima nuclear accident (Daini site)

Fukushima nuclear accident (Daiichi site)

the Daiichi or Daini naming should replace "I" and "II" which are uninformative; little-known jargon at best, and cryptic to impenetrable to most readers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DISAGREE
For MOST people the names Daini and Daiichi mean absolutely nothing, while everywhere in the news the discussion is about Fukushima 1 power plant. Funnily enough outside of Japan these plants are better known by their numbers than their names. 91.152.41.58 (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a tricky situation. Officially, the names are Daiichi and Daini which essentially translate to #1 and #2. However, I have heard both names (Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima I) so I imagine it can be fairly confusing for some. The ideal solution would be to determine which is more prevalent in reports and make that the main name here (possibly with the other name in parenthesis). Just with a rough check on google, I'm getting a huge separation in number of hits. Approximately 4.7 million for 'Fukushima Daiichi', ~7.6 million for 'Fukushima Dai-ichi' or 'Fukushima Dai Ichi', and a whopping ~44 million for 'Fukushima I'. Given that there is a ten-fold increase in hits with the current name, I see no reason to change it. The name 'Dai-ichi' is already specified in the article and it's the first hit regardless of name googled anyway, no chance of missing it. As for the split being 'Daiichi' vs 'Daini', that is a case of the speakers personal preference, for example, I say 'Daiichi' but I mean Fukushima I and would follow that convention. The terms/names in that context are irrelevant. Vindicata (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you double check that, I think you've made a mistake. 4.7 million pages contain Fukishima and Daiichi, but only 3.2 million contain the exact phrase "Fukushima Daiichi". Similarly not 7.6 but 5.1 million contain "Fukushima Dai-Ichi"/"Fukushima Dai Ichi". Compare this to only 1.0 million for "Fukushima I", or 1.5 million for "Fukushima 1". (Every page containing the pronoun I and the word Fukushima is included in your 44 million, which just isn't relevent here.)
Clearly it is the transliteration (dai-ichi) that is significantly more commonly used than the translation (numeral one). Furthermore, a quick glance at the TEPCO English webpage [1] demonstrates that the official name in English is the transliteration and not the translation (and the naming of it is surely their prerogative). A quick look at the current BBC news front page story [2] demonstrates that the transliteration is also currently preferred in mainstream world media. Such convergence! Seems there's no excuse left for using the alternative (and worse, it makes the casual reader more likely to confuse reactor unit 1 with the entire daiichi site); I'm compelled to AGREE that the article should prefer the name daiichi. Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just include both?
   * Timeline of the Fukushima I (Daiichi) nuclear accidents
   * Timeline of the Fukushima II (Daini) nuclear accidents

24.87.51.64 (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wouldn't further hide this page from users. I believe it's simply 1 & 2 designations, as in the English language. When you're trying to write something shorthand, or so that it will fit within the alloted space on a piece of equipment, you would use something like "Fukushima 1" or "Fukushima 2". If you have plenty of room, then you would include the "One" (ichi) or "Two" (ni) long term. Hence, just use (@#$@#) parentheses! roger (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably defer to whatever decision is concluded in the main discussion. You might want to forward your alternative suggestion over there, but personally I think it would depart with a very commonly applied WP policy: usually the title picks just one name rather than inventing a hybrid, and then the lead lists all the main alternate names, and the alternate (but not hybrid) titled pages are made to automatically redirect to the article, therefore anyone who searches by any of the common alternates will still find it and no original jargon needs be invented. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to just keep the long, most informative page names, but at the same time add things like "Fukushima I", "Fukushima II", "Fukushima 1", "Fukushima 2", "Daiichi" and "Daini", as some kind of tags, that would be redirected to the correct pages? 90.191.78.48 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Distortions in the Timeline

The timeline entry for Thursday, 31 March states: "Plans begin to implement Chernobyl's concrete sarcophagus solution to Fukushima plant." The citation is inadequate but leads/links to an article in the Augusta Chronicle where Jerry Ashmore of Ashmore Concrete Contractors is quoted: "Our understanding is, they are preparing to go to next phase and it will require a lot of concrete." The use of very large concrete pumps from the same manufacturer (Putzmeister) back in 1986 at Chernobyl is mentioned, but nowhere in this article is any mention of a sarcophagus solution being planned by TEPCO. The article does seem confusing and immediately mentioning Chernobyl is somewhat sensationalistic. Neither TEPCO nor the Japanese regulators JAIF have made any announcements or statements suggesting they plan to implement a sarcophagus solution. TEPCO has been focused on restoring plant electrical systems for the last two weeks. Per the IAEA accident timeline on IAEA's site, power to the control room indicators and control equipment for units 3 and 4 (combined control room) was restored on or about April 6th. The lighting circuits had been repaired earlier for both this and the other control room serving units 1 and 2. Point being, TEPCO is doing a lot of electrical work so they can restore closed-loop cooling. That's not anything like Chernobyl, which was entombed while still hot. And why would they be trying to restore normal plant functions in a facility they intend to entomb? I can see large amounts of concrete being used as extra biological sheilding, but nothing like a complete sacrophagus. See IAEA and TEPCO websites. Secondary source: Atomic Power Review [1] A lot of data, especially data about any improvements in plant condition, has not been covered by media in the US. TEPCO is using diesel and electric pumps with backup diesel generators for most of the cooling work. TEPCO is not "struggling" to keep the reactors wet, but they are working very hard to start closed-loop cooling which will greatly improve radiation control. Ucbuffalo81 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem correct concerning the media coverage in the US covering the Fukushima incident.  Not much heard here, and I'm in Alaska.  From my knowledge and based on hearsay, they do not intend to entomb the plants as the concrete will deteriorate quickly over time and will prevent cooling, putting ground water at further risk. (per Chernobyl disaster?) The past day's notes [3] iterate this.  However, seems international support has been commencing according to past day's notes [4] concerning pumps transfered from Atlanta via Russian assistance - which is extremely reassuring.  And since you mentioned, I can see them using concrete barriers or ground loop cooling coils, etc, in a partial entombment.  (I've been wondering why dump the water, and just recycle it.  Recool it using nitrogen or something, but maybe it was seawater.)  We'll probably be seeing more distortions as containment on this scale is one big experiment.  roger (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TEPCO currently plans to avoid a Chernobyl-like strategy. TEPCO does not project entombing the radioactive material in concrete -- see "TEPCO won't take Chernobyl approach to resolving nuclear power plant crisis," Mainichi Shimbun (Japan). 8 April 2011. If circumstances were to change, the remote-controlled Putzmeister boom pumps could be retrofitted to deliver concrete as was done at Chernobyl. --Tenmei (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overblown daily diary

This article is basically an overblown daily diary and is not encyclopedic. It is far too long and has become a dumping ground for any little snippet of information that seems to be associated with the topic. The long and sprawling tables are confusing to readers and reduce readability and neatness. Use of dot points interrupts the flow of the text and makes it difficult to read. Johnfos (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not reasonable in the context of creating an article about an on-going event?

Yes, we can anticipate that some detail will be consolidated or perhaps removed in the ultimate editing process, but not now. The criteria for overly aggressive conventional editing have not yet evolved.

IMO, the question for editors at this stage of the article becomes: Is a new detail likely to be helpful or unhelpful to those who might consult this article during the course of an unfolding narrative? --Tenmei (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that some detail can be consolidated and summarised as time goes on. And some info can be shifted to other articles where it might be more appropriate. But as for documenting an "unfolding narrative" I don't think that is the purpose of Wikipedia. Johnfos (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consider History of Western civilization. The first half of the article covers roughly 500 BC to 1800, and the second half covers the remaining 211 years. I would expect something similar from this article - that is, more detail for the most recent items, and less detail for the older items with the perspective granted by hindsight helping to determine which items to keep or drop. The cascade of events shortly after the earthquake leading to the failure of the cooling systems is particularly important to this article, as is the most recent few days of updates, because people will read this article to find out exactly how things came unraveled and to learn the present situation. The content in between can be pruned as it becomes clear that it's not significant to the situation's development. -- ke4roh (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Johnfos -- If "unfolding narrative" is a controversial choice of words, it is easy to strike out the phrase. In general, we are on the same page. IMO, a good example of a table which did not seem helpful is here. However, in the context of WP:AGF, I guessed that it is arguably valuable for someone else? --Tenmei (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Material consolidated, using summary from Fukushima I nuclear accidents. Johnfos (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When this event can actually be declared over, there will be a great time for pruning - because then, we'll have a good idea of what turned out to be key points in the timeline and what was just chaff. The whole-sale gutting of the article you just performed, however, is just the kind of arrant deletionism that Wikipedia has become so infamous for. -- Kolbasz (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If material is not encyclopedic, and falls outside of WP policy guidelines, it generally doesn't survive for long on Wikipedia. Johnfos (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo Johnfos! You removed extremely valuable, verified yet still unexplained information (i.e. about raising levels of radiation on April 7th). Are you with TEPCO? That would explain. 23:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.7.50 (talk)
(edit conflict) As I said at the outset, this page became a dumping ground for all sorts of information in the end. Detailed discussion of radiation levels should be at Radiation effects from Fukushima I nuclear accidents. Johnfos (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol, he is not with Tepco or any pro-nuclear organization, I can tell you that much. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the first time in my four years on WP that someone has suggested that I work for a nuclear power company :) Johnfos (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting overblown copy-edit which was too bold

I would support undoing Johnfos's copy-edit. I understand the intention, but his comments in this thread were not sufficient warning. The cuts were too bold, too dramatic, too extensive.

For example, in the text for just one day -- April 6 -- everything was removed without explanation. In this one instance, the deletion of all text with inline citation support was unjustified. This kind of extensive copy-edit is arguably premature. This edit also removed many inline citations. Johnfos's judgment retains some hyperlinks which are likely to become broken within the coming months, and his decision-making deleted some inline citations (with embedded hyperlinks) which are likely to remain active.

In summary, this was simply too much. There were no redlinks in the citation notes before Johnfos's massive edit, and now they are a problem for someone else to resolve. --Tenmei (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Kolbasz' comment above here. --Tenmei (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Johnfos, the problem is that you have removed a great variety of detail which others may consider worthy of inclusion, and because you edited the article so extensively at the same time it is now very difficult for us to diff exactly what (and how many facts) has been removed; basically our only easy recourse is to undo your good improvements along with the bad. (If one example may be representative, I disagree with removal of mention of the US drone plane brought in to help survey, and I'd hate to think that similarly notable details may also be lost.) During any major edit, it is always better for you to quarantine debatable content into minor subsections instead of immediately deleting it in the same go (so less to step on all the other editors toes). Remember, as already mentioned this is the greatest nuclear disaster since Chernobyl and so even decades from now we will likely expect a more substantial quantity of content on WP; the trimming of facts now is premature and subjective.Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that, if you revert, you will be going back to an article that is basically an overblown daily diary and is not encyclopedic. It will still be far too long because it has become a dumping ground for any little snippet of information that seems to be associated with the topic. It will still need cleanup and copyediting because the long and sprawling tables will still be confusing to readers and reduce readability and neatness, and use of dot points interrupts the flow of the text. Johnfos (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Johnfos, I am sorry if I was discourteous. Of course I never believed you were a pro-nuclear fanatic. I was just pissed off to see that on the one repository of the detailed story that impacts the planet, the sum of information that has been gathered is simply washed away by the decision of a single person. This article is not a dissertation: it is called "Timeline" and so it is, with as much detail as can be gathered. It may be used by generations in the future. And the chronology of details may be revealing very important information at some point. Where else will you find that? 08:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.7.50 (talk)
No offense taken. Honestly. And thank you for coming back to talk about this further. I understand what you and the others are saying about possible loss of important details. But my main concern is with the overall quality and integrity of the article from a Wikipedia viewpoint. The shorter version of the article is not perfect, but I believe it is a step in the right direction. Johnfos (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, whether you are known or not, every few days there are whiners posting here their irrelevant rants that could be obviously considered anti or pro nuclear.  roger (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC) (This user has the Wiki Award for Powering his house for a full day on one can of baked beans.)[reply]

It was exactly for that reason that I opposed the split a few weeks ago. However significant the event, there is just too much "news" here and not enough encyclopaedic content. Time to get the garden shears out, peeps! --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Wikipedia's purpose is to be encyclopedic and to provide a good summary of a topic. That being said, I personally keep coming back to this page for the "daily diary" and most recent snippets of information. As the event has progressed, the article has reduced this in favor of encyclopedic content. My question is, where can I go to find the daily diary of events? Do any of you know of another single site that provides this information? I don't expect it to all be here, but it would be nice to find somewhere. Thanks. 166.20.224.12 (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse the nuanced comments of Cesiumfrog here + here and Kolbasz here.
Perhaps the words of Cesiumfrog deserve re-visiting:
"... the problem is that you have removed a great variety of detail ... and because you edited the article so extensively at the same time it is now very difficult for us to diff exactly what (and how many facts) has been removed; basically our only easy recourse is to undo your good improvements along with the bad."
This problem is distilled in an English idiom: Throw out the baby with the bathwater. Paraphrasing Johnfos, "the shorter version of the article creates so many problems that it must be reverted even though the intended goal is a step in the right direction" [words in italics added] In other words, as Cesiumfrog explained well enough:
"it is always better for you to quarantine debatable content into minor subsections instead of immediately deleting it in the same go ... [and] the trimming of facts now is premature and subjective."
This thread has produced good and sufficient reasons for reverting Johnfos. The general perception can be restated in this way: the massive edit was a faux pas. The revert addresses a wrong step in the right direction. --Tenmei (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is the right decision. (Was 87.231.7.50 now under a different IP, sorry). I am still not logged in, which makes me one of these innumerable contributors of lesser importance, who feel they might still bring valuable pieces of info here and there (and to whom WP owes a decent part of its content). I know and understand the guidelines. I am still convinced that the editing is wrong for two reasons: 1) There are several types of pages. Lists, for instance, do not have any "encyclopaedic content", yet they are a major asset in WP. They wouldn't have this considerable space and value in WP, if they were not as complete as possible. Timelines are the same. You may want to hierarchize the content, maybe hide parts, to make them more legible, but not remove verified and important info. 2) You guys have a role in history. WP has become THE reference for hundreds of millions of people. I am still talking of this one small piece of data as an example (I am not even the one who added it): on April 7, radiation was way off the chart in one of the measuring devices of unit 1 and recordings stopped after this [5]. Probably just a faulty device. No one knows. Who can judge until we do? Isn't this worth being on the timeline, at least until we are sure? I am very grateful to you guys for your work, but, please, make sure you "garden shears" are not too fast. --90.2.139.147 13:53, 12 April 2011

What next?

Johnfos added headnotes which are arguably on-point. and undisputed. For example, who doesn't agree that yes, this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. Who doesn't recognize that yes, this article does require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

No one misunderstood or disagreed with the reasonable goals which were very plain in Johnfos major edit.

The question now becomes "What next?" For example, one of the headnotes poses a timely suggestion, "Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject." A good starting point may be the overview and analysis summaries which Johnfos drafted. Each of the collapsed sections represent Johnfos' attempts to distill what is significant during each week of the first month. Now what? We are still in the midst of the "accident sequence". What next?

  1. Perhaps the first four weeks could be developed further as a "1st month" sub-article branching off from this timeline?
  2. Perhaps the second four weeks could be developed further as a "2nd month" sub-article?
  3. ....?

IMO, it bears repeating that experts recognize that Fukushima is not the worst nuclear accident ever but it is the most complicated. --Tenmei (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is already the long version of a summary which was in the accident article. The summary there has now been deleted because the article became too long. Now someone is suggesting cutting this because it is too long? This is NUTS!. Someone is saying that wikipedia cannot cover these events because they are too complicated.
If it is felt this article is in itself too long, then it might be possible to split it, say by week. Bring in here the summaries which existed from the accident article, perhaps expand them a bit. Then for each week have a sub article with all the detail. (timeline...week1, timeline..week2 and so on)
This is a reference source about the events as they happened. It needs expansion not cutting. Sandpiper (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing deletion is just stupid. I'm hear in Alaska and need a reasonable source of reliable info concerning this major life threatening incident. Even though info was hard to follow immediately following the incident, a few weeks ago, news pretty much silenced leaving me (us) almost in the dark, making this Timeline Article the only real source of somewhat reliable and current info. It's amazing how the majority are usually gladly able to easily forget about others. Kudos to the above poster for, again, taking the time to find a peaceful resolution versus simply letting Johnfos do whatever he wants. Of course, feel free to ignore my need for reliable info. Don't come running for me when things get worse. (I support finding middle ground on this Tenmei -- and just now seeing Sandpiper. And once you do, somebody will again complain about the newly found middle ground. Good luck. ... might suggest just deleting/blocking Johnfos account ;-) roger (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD proposal suggests that I misunderstood what Johnfos was trying to do. I struck out some of my words above. In an AGF context, what are the next steps in a arguably constructive direction? --Tenmei (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fukushima nuclear accident log, March 2011

The BOLD copy-edit of Johnfos is now restored in that part of the article which addresses the "accident sequence" or "event tree" in the month of March only. This proposed text can now be examined and revised in the normal course of collaborative editing.

The full log which Johnfos characterizes here as "not encyclopedic" and as "overblown daily diary which is a dumping ground for all sorts of miscellaneous news" is retained in a linked sub-article. These paragraphs and tables are also ripe for further editing and "clean-up".

In due course, some details which are now in the sub-article are likely to be restored to the main article.

Although there was general agreement that the extent of Johnfos' BOLD edit may have "pruned" too much detail, it appears that the summaries that he did prepare were given scant attention.

IMO, Johnfos' draft text does provide a valid and sufficient basis for meaningful discussion and consensus building.

In early May, I would propose to do much the same thing with that part of the article which deals with the unfolding sequence of events in April -- see Fukushima nuclear accident log, April 2011.

This means retaining the BOLD summary text that Johnfos drafted and re-locating the more detailed daily logs to a newly-created sub-article.

Is this a reasonable short-term plan? What do you think? --Tenmei (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5th week

Shouldn't the 5th week start an April 9th? The 4th week has two saturdays now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.211.251.252 (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but consensus may decide to parse or subdivide this chronology other ways, e.g.,
These are arbitrary 7-day ordinal increments starting from the initial earthquake/tsunami events. They are grouped in calendar month chunks. Does anyone propose another or better strategy? --Tenmei (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Proposal for Deletion

I find it astounding to see the note that this page is being considered for deletion.

This page is an invaluable resource to view the unfolding events.

By all means tell the story as a proper history after the event, whenever that might be, but please do not in the interim delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.77.110 (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it is not too early to begin to grapple with copy-editing issues like the ones which have attracted Johnfos's interest and attention, but we must take great care not to throw out the baby with the bathwater --Tenmei (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This page has had better information than any other source. Don't delete it! 131.107.0.81 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

  1. ^ http://atomicpowerreview.blogspot.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_nuclear_accident&oldid=423915868"